Delhi Court May 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 5 of about 157 results (0.021 seconds)Amarpal (Raj Pal) Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. We have repeatedly emphasized the evidentiary value and importance of memos prepared contemporaneously during investigation, while appreciating the testimony of those who claim to be eye witnesses. It is unfortunate that we are repeatedly noting that the learned Trial Judges are gullibly accepting, as gospel truth, whatever is spoken of by those who claim to be eye witnesses. The instant case is a classic example of how people can manage to tell lie and unless a Judge is vigilant, gross injustice may result.2. We beg the pardon of being a little prolix while writing this decision, for the reason we intend to carry out an academic exercise for the benefit of learned Trial Judges; so that they are guided, in future, as how should a Court approach the task of appreciating evidence in relation to ocular evidence and the contemporaneous memos containing record of investigation prepared by the police.3. That a crime was committed within jurisdiction of PS Sarita Vihar...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Tractores Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Aruna Suresh, J.C.S. (OS) No. 1534A/2006 and I.A. No. 981/2007 (Under Sections 15, 16, 30 & 33 of Arbitration Act)1. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') seeking directions against Respondent No. 2, the Sole Arbitrator to file her Award dated 28.6.2006 together with entire proceedings recorded by her in Arbitration Case No. GR-04/06 and thereafter to give notice to the parties of filing of the Award inviting objections, if any to the said Award.2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that Union of India floated a tender for supply of 5 DG Sets, 4 of 250 KVA and one of 200 KVA. Objector submitted the tender as per NIT. Formal acceptance of the tender was conveyed on 23.5.1985. It was preceded by a telegraphic acceptance on 28.2.1985.3. NIT specified that DGS & D-68 (Revised) and DGS & D-71 as amended would be read as part of the tender documents. The DGS&D; has notified conditions of contract and has classified t...
Tag this Judgment!The Central Secretariat Stenographers Service Association and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
V.K. Jain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 25.05.2007 in O.A. No. 145/2006 read with O.A. No. 669/2006, whereby the Tribunal declined to recall/modify its order dated 11.11.2005 passed in OA No. 1435/2005, quashing para 4 of the Central Secretariat Service Section Officers Grade/Stenographers Grade B (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) whereby the members of the Central Secretariat Stenographer Services were eligible to sit in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for the post of Section Officers.2. The Central Secretariat Stenographers' Service (hereinafter referred to as CSSS) is one of the three Central Secretariat Services, the other two being Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and the Central Secretariat Clerical Service. Rule 13 of the Central Secretariat Service Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') framed und...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 7th March, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribnunal, Principal Bench in OA 1785/2005 titled as Sh. Om Prakash v. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway and Anr. dismissing the petition of Late Sh. Om Prakash, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 seeking direction to the respondents to revise the pay in grade of Rs. 4500-7000 w.e.f. 1st January, 1996 and to grant difference of pay and also to pay interest @ 18% at the amount due w.e.f. 1st October, 1996.2. Late Sh. Om Prakash was initially appointed as Lamp Man in 1960 and had been promoted to the rank of Shunting Jamadar and thereafter to Shunting Master in the grade of 380-560/1320-2040.3. The father of the petitioners alleged that because of domestic circumstances, i.e., on account of sickness of his wife, he remained absent for about 4-5 years and thereafter, on account of her daughter's heart ailment, he had to...
Tag this Judgment!Sahana Siddique and ors. Vs. Dharm Vir and ors.
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants assailing award dated 26th March, 1990 passed by the learned Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,80,000/- to the claimants. The award is assailed on the ground of the inadequacy of the compensation as well as on the issue decided by the Tribunal that the liability of the Insurance Company was only limited to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.2. Undisputed facts are that the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident. He was working with Saudi Airlines as a supervisor and drawing a salary of Rs. 3894/- p.m. He was receiving Rs. 250/- as HRA and meal allowance of Rs. 20/-per day. At the time of death he left behind a wife, two sons, one daughter and aged mother, dependent on him. The Tribunal considered the income tax payable by the deceased and looking into his post of supervisory cadre observed that he would have to maintain a reasonable standard of living so dependency of the claimants would be around R...
Tag this Judgment!Joint Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Escorts Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Manmohan, J.1. The only issue that arises for consideration in the present proceedings is whether the decision dated 11th December, 2003 rendered by Mr. Y.H. Malegam is an arbitral award or an expert's decision. The petitioner who has filed the present petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1996') and who has continued to proceed with the case despite being offered to elect between the present petition and a suit, has yet submitted that the impugned decision is not an arbitral award but an expert's decision.2. The relevant facts of this case are that in 1969, the Escorts Limited Employees Senior & Supervisory Staff Superannuation Trust (in short 'EL Trust') was formed with a defined contribution scheme to provide pensionary benefits to certain senior employees of respondent-Escorts Limited.3. On 30th September, 1996, the Automotive Division of Escorts Limited was hived off into a separate company called Escorts Mahle Limite...
Tag this Judgment!Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd. and Another. Vs. Mohit Sharma and A ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The complainant/respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant/OP, MDR Service Centre and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., which are OP Nos. 2 and 3, Service Centre and the Manufacturing Company respectively of the Samsung Mobile Phone alleging that the mobile phone purchased by him for Rs. 4,830 from OP No. 1 Subhiksha Mobile, dealer of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., OP No. 3, started malfunctioning from 7.9.2008 the day it was purchased and the defects could not be removed and he made many visits to the OP No. 2 Service Centre for its repairs. Yet the set remained faulty, he therefore, prayed that OPs be directed to refund the cost of the set purchased and also compensation of Rs. fifty thousand. The complaint was contested by OP Nos. 2 and 3 and the District Consumer Forum ordered OP No. 3 to refund the amount of purchase of mobile of Rs. 4,830 paid by the complainant along with compensation of Rs. three thousand and costs of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chand Vs. H.D.F.C. Bank
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The complainant had a saving bank account in Krishna Nagar Branch of OP HDFC Bank. The manager of the OP Bank on 19.4.2009 telephoned the complainant to close his account. The complainant had issued some cheques and on 27.4.2009 when he went to Yamuna Vihar Branch for depositing some cash they declined to deposit it saying that he should approach Krishna Nagar Branch where the complainant has his account but that branch too refused to deposit the amount informing him that his account was closed. He thereafter approached the Bank Manager who issued him a notice on 27.4.2009 asking him to provide the bank certain details and thereafter on 19.5.2009 wrote to the complainant to utilize direct banking channels for utility payments, cash deposits/withdrawals and fund transfers, but declined to re-activate the account. The complainant therefore filed a complaint before District Forum against the OP Bank. 2. The OP Bank opposed the claim and filed written...
Tag this Judgment!Maj.Gen. Psk Choudary (Retd.) Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Petitioner by this Writ Petition has challenged the order dated 24th July, 2004 issued by General Officer Commanding in Chief, Western Command on the findings of the GCM in respect of plea in bar. It is also prayed to quash the order dated 29th July, 2004 of GOC-in-C Western Command for re-assembly of the GCM. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this petition are that petitioner was commissioned in the Regiment of Artillery and in due course of time he became Major General and took over on 20th February, 1998 as Additional Director General, Weapons and Equipment, Army Headquarters. 3. On 13th March, 2001 tehelka.com gave a presentation on the sting operation (Operation West End) carried out by them at Hotel Imperial. Thereafter, news channels on the television began showing excerpts of the videotapes made public by tehelka.com. 4. In the night of 13th March, 2001 Defence Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India called the petitioner and told him about hi...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Dulal @ Fazal Karim Vs. State
Court: Delhi
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 25th May, 2009 and order on sentence dated 27th May, 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appellant-accused was convicted under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 392 IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 397 IPC.2. The prosecution case is that on 2nd December 2006 the appellant along with two other persons, who could not be arrested by the police, robbed PW3 Sunil Kumar of Rs. 21,000/- and his wrist watch at the point of knife. After committing robbery all the three persons had managed to run away from the place of incident. On 25th November, 2006 the appellant-accused was arrested in case FIR No. 209/06 registered at Rajinder Nagar Police Station under Section 25 of the Arms Act and while in police custody in that case...
Tag this Judgment!